Things worth knowing

Sunday, 18 January 2015

Dogs shall be carried

I was in London recently, and while I was at King's Cross station I noticed that the escalators, which bear the usual safety warnings, now say among other things that 'Dogs shall be carried'. Maybe they've always said that, but it's more common to see the warning as 'Dogs must be carried'. This has given rise to the well-known joke, also seen in the recent Paddington film, in which a child is late for school and when asked why, he says that the sign said dogs must be carried and it took him ages to find a dog.

So my question is, does using 'shall' instead of 'must' remove this comedy interpretation or improve the sign in any way? No one really uses 'shall' any more, but it indicates future and apparently has some sense of being a command. 'Must' also expresses a command ('deontic necessity' - it can also express 'epistemic necessity' as in 'It must be cold outside'). Does 'shall' seem politer? Does a warning sign need to be polite? Unknown. Some more good suggestions here.

5 comments:

I don't think the modal verb makes any difference (except that 'shall' sounds a bit old fashioned and probably therefore more authoritarian?) but doesn't the tone group change depending on whether it is taken to mean 'if you have a dog, you must carry it' (dogs must be CARRied') or 'you mustn't use the escalator unless you are carrying a dog'? (DOGS must be carried.)

Hm. I thought I replied to this but it must have got eaten. Anyway, yes, it is used in questions, of course you're right. But in declaratives, it's now quite rare. It's interesting that it's hung on in one context and not the other.

It's usually used in making offers, or at least that's the use that's commonly presented in ELT material. Nice article here on some prescriptivist poppycock about 'shall': https://badlinguistics.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/simon-heffer-and-a-cartload-of-rubbish/